Final Reflection
Last week’s Munk+Evergreen seminar featured a panel of “change makers”, who have considerable advocacy experience. Each panelist shared their personal experiences on how they overcame barriers in order to achieve their advocacy outcomes.
What stood out the most for me was that advocacy involves various stakeholders that often have disparate interests and opposing positions on the same policy issue. One of the panelists stressed the importance of understanding and unpacking opposing positions to understand why a stakeholder has adopted a given position, or what interest is driving that position. In digging deeper, we often find that these differences are not as great as they may appear initially. In fact, the differences can be bridged, as any meaningful attempt to understand opposing positions and disparate interests reveals each stakeholder’s BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). These candid conversations are crucial for finding the middle ground and generating consensus on a shared vision.
I would also like to take this opportunity to reflect on the course, since this is the final reflection. In order to enrol in the course, we were required to submit a short paragraph on why we would like to take a course on “Making an Impact from the Outside.” In my submission, I expressed interest in learning “citizen-centric policymaking.” This course has taught me just that: how to develop sensible policy solutions, through consultation, that address public policy issues at the community-level?
My biggest takeaway from this course is my understanding of advocacy groups. Until recently, I viewed these groups as special interest groups, that “hijack the policy process in order to serve their special interests” (Montpetit, 2014). To my mind, labelling a group as an advocacy group had a negative connotation.
Throughout this course, however, I learned that advocacy groups are, in fact, borne out of gaps in existing public policy frameworks. These groups fulfil an important purpose in our societies by providing an avenue for citizen preferences to be reflected in public policies. Overall, advocacy groups complement and enhance the traditional policy process. As such, I no longer view advocacy groups in negative light. In fact, I now view advocacy groups as an important part of vibrant, healthy, and strong communities.
Another key takeaway is the importance of meaningful public consultation in policymaking. The modern policy process is become increasingly technocratic. While technical expertise are quite beneficial in developing public policies, they are no substitute for consulting citizens who are affected by these policies. In this regard, advocacy is an instrumental mechanism for ensuring that citizen preferences are reflected in public policies.
